Cross posted from Rational Resistance.

 UPDATE: Faculty at Rutgers are now calling for the resignation of the president and for an investigation into the president and the athletic director for waiting until these outrages became public before deciding to fire the coach. 

 There's big news in the world of college sports this week, and it really opens a window on the nature of big-time college athletics.

First, you probably heard about Mike Rice, the coach of the Rutgers basketball team. He got fired yesterday after video surfaced showing him shoving, punching, kicking, and throwing basketballs at his players, as well as swearing at them and calling them such vile names as “fucking fairy” and “fucking faggot”.

Robert Barchi, the president of the university, released a strongly worded statement about the firing.

“Rutgers University has a long and proud history as one of the nation's most diverse and welcoming academic institutions. Coach Rice's abusive language and actions are deeply offensive and egregiously violate the university's core values,” the statement said.

Of course, we also know that the university had the videos of this abusive conduct since at least last November, so when Barchi talks about the “university's core values” I think we know exactly what he means: the desire of Rutgers University not to be publicly humiliated or lose any of its sports revenue.

And are they going to take any action against the athletic director for not firing the coach earlier? No, and for exactly one reason. As they admitted to ESPN, “Pernetti's job is safe” for now because of his prior work on getting Rutgers into a lucrative Big 10 deal last fall.

Stay classy, Rutgers!

Sticking with basketball we have the case of Kevin Ware, the Louisville basketball player with the gruesome tibia fracture on Sunday, the injury that was so bad that the networks aren't even showing the replays of. He had surgery earlier this week, and we're hoping he has a complete recovery that won't interfere with his continuing to pursue his education–er, his career as an unpaid minor league basketball player. This is fortunate, because under existing NCAA rules, if his injury had prevented him from playing he would not be entitled to keep his athletic scholarship.

Every tragedy is an opportunity, though, right? For instance, to honor Kevin Ware Adidas and the NCAA are marketing a T-shirt emblazoned with his number, the Louisville cardinal, and the slogan “Rise to the occasion”. You know who won't get any of the twenty-five bucks you have to plunk down to show your respect for Kevin Ware? Kevin Ware or his family. Ever.

If you're still not mad enough at the gross shame and corruption that is big-time college athletics, learn more from this great article by Taylor Branch, The Shame of College Sports, in The Atlantic.

:: Previously ::

A few years ago, while the press was providing non-stop coverage of the devastating explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico, a less “exciting” pipeline spill happened in Michigan, garnering almost no coverage at all. The spill occurred in a stretch of pipeline that was first installed in 1950, which had previously run incident-free:

… At least 1 million gallons of oil blackened more than two miles of Talmadge Creek and almost 36 miles of the Kalamazoo River, and oil is still showing up 23 months later, as the cleanup continues. About 150 families have been permanently relocated and most of the tainted stretch of river between Marshall and Kalamazoo remained closed to the public until June 21.

The accident was triggered by a six-and-a-half foot tear in 6B, a 30-inch carbon steel pipeline operated by Enbridge Energy Partners…

…

The monitors detected benzene levels that ranged from below 50 parts per billion (ppb) to as high as 200 ppb. Some alarming spikes-6,250 ppb and even 10,000 ppb-showed up over patches of oil on the water and away from homes.

In that particular spill, Enbridge did not follow the protocols that were in place for spill response. When certain alarms sounded, they were supposed to stop the flow of oil in the line. Unfortunately, those alarms tend to sound fairly frequently, because a spill is not the only possible trigger – an air bubble in the pipe can also trigger the alarms. Since air bubbles are fairly common, the crews are accustomed to doing the exact opposite of what should be done in a spill: pump extra oil at higher pressure to try to push the bubble out of the line. You can guess what happens when you push extra oil at higher pressure into a pipe that has a 6 foot hole in it. If you’re having trouble picturing it, there are 150 families in Michigan can tell you from personal experience; or perhaps this photo of the Kalamazoo river will help:

photo: (c) MIoilspill

That was in 2010, and they’re still cleaning up the spill. 150 families lost their homes, animals are still being killed in certain areas by the thick “oil,” and they are still trying to figure out how to remove the glop from the river bed. Unlike actual oil, the “oil” in a tar sands pipeline is actually “diluted bitumen” (more on that classification later), and diluted bitumen sinks. Oil floats. The equipment that exists for cleaning up oil spills is designed to deal with a substance that floats. It is useless against a substance that sinks.

:: More after the jump ::

:: Currently ::

But there are more recent examples. The past week has provided a tidy trio of oil spill news.

First, a train carrying tar sands “oil” derailed in Minnesota, spilling 15,000 – 30,000 gallons of the stuff (reports vary).

That spill gave encouragement to pipeline promoters, who claimed no such thing could happen with a pipeline, so KXL should be built post-haste!  

Alas, a couple of days later, a stretch of Exxon’s Mayflower pipeline burst under a residential neighborhood in Arkansas, dumping 10,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) into back yards, basements, storm drains, and now the local lake, once again putting the lie to the claims that long-extant pipelines are hazard-free.

In between last week’s episodes of tar sands fun, Exxon Mobil was hit with a $1.7 million fine for having failed to shut down a pipeline near the Yellowstone river during a major flood event in 2011, despite government warnings that the severe flooding put the pipeline at risk of rupture. Exxon’s decision resulted in 42,000 gallons of oil being dumped into the pristine (formerly, anyway) Yellowstone river when the raging flood waters caused the pipeline to break.

There are three key elements to note about pipelines and tar sands:

1) Pipelines work great until the moment they fail.

2) Tar sands spills are much more destructive and much harder to clean up than conventional oil.

3) Oil companies don’t always do what they’re supposed to do. Just for fun, here’s another example.

This brings us to:

:: Today ::

There’s nothing like ignorance when it comes to energy policy. And there’s nothing like the Caledonian Record for providing examples.

In this morning’s paper, the editor, Todd Smith, had these words of wisdom, regarding S.58, a bill passed by the Senate to require Act 250 review for new pipelines or changes to existing pipelines (other than repairs):

The bill targets an oil pipeline that has run quietly, since the 1940s, through a corner of the Northeast Kingdom. Theoretically it could be used to move Canadian tar sand oil but there are no plans, by anyone, to do so.

ed. note: no plans, sort of…

…

To be clear, the NEK pipeline has zero negative impact on Vermont and never will.

Those are Smith’s actual words – “never will.” He’s clearly a brilliant logician, saying, essentially:

Since nothing has gone wrong yet, nothing can ever go wrong.

Wow, that’s awesome! I’m wondering if he might swing by my house and apply his “never go wrong” magic to my cars. I’ve had terrible luck – they’ll run great for years, and then, one day, things start breaking and I find myself financing a new boat for my mechanic, until I reach the point where I’m either getting a new car, or the mechanic is upgrading to a yacht.

Besides the obvious logical fallacy in Smith’s premise, there’s another reason a shift to tar sands is riskier than continuing to run processed liquid heating oil through the pipes:

Tar sands “oil” isn’t oil. We use the word oil as a shortcut reference to the eventual end product. However, before it’s processed, it is actually a thick tar that can’t flow on its own, called “bitumen.” In order to flow, it has to be thinned. What runs through the pipes is “diluted bitumen.”

One of the primary thinning agents is benzene. From OSHA [emphasis mine]:

Benzene can affect your health if you inhale it, or if it comes in contact with your skin or eyes. Benzene is also harmful if you happen to swallow it.

…

If you are overexposed to high concentrations of benzene … you may feel breathless, irritable, euphoric, or giddy; you may experience irritation in eyes, nose, and respiratory tract. You may develop a headache, feel dizzy, nauseated, or intoxicated. Severe exposures may lead to convulsions and loss of consciousness.

…

Repeated or prolonged exposure to benzene, even at relatively low concentrations, may result in various blood disorders, ranging from anemia to leukemia, an irreversible, fatal disease. Many blood disorders associated with benzene exposure may occur without symptoms.

The EPA is required to set two types of contamination levels for pollutants in water. One of those, the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) indicates the maximum amount of the contaminant that can be present in water before it affects your health.

The MCLG for Benzene:

The MCLG for benzene is zero. EPA has set this level of protection based on the best available science to prevent potential health problems.

The EPA also has an “Enforceable Regulation” level, called the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). If this much benzene is found in water, the source must be found and eliminated, and, the water cannot be used for drinking and should not be used for bathing:

0.005 mg/L or 5 parts per billion.

To give you a sense of what this means: one single drop of benzene makes 75,000 gallons of water unsafe.

Remember the benzene levels found in the air in the Michigan spill? No? They’re in the first quote block at the beginning of this post – scroll on up and take a look, then come on back and think about those numbers in context.

There are some estimates on how much airborne benzene may or may not cause lasting harm to people who breathe such concentrations, but unfortunately, those estimates were of no help to the health department in Kalamazoo, because they’re designed based on certain types of industrial exposures. There is no information for the exposures that occurred in Michigan, and there were no measurements taken in most homes (except a few private measurements taken by Enbridge, the results of which they refuse to release) in the area, so even if there were health estimates, no one knows what kinds of exposures were experienced for what durations by the affected families.

So, tar sands “oil” not only presents much more significant cleanup issues, it also presents health risks of unknown severity.

Good thing the pipeline “never will” pose any kind of risk!

But, wait! There’s more from Mr. Smith’s editorial:

At almost exactly the same time the Senate refused Act 250 environmental oversight for new industrial wind projects, as had been proposed in S.30. The bill was intended to protect our mountains and forests from the well-documented destruction done to them by industrial development.

I could link to all the stories from right here on GMD that illustrate that the “destruction” is seriously overstated and something entirely other than “well-documented” but it would take up lots of space – just use the search mechanism.

There’s a different point I’d like to address in the above quote:

Smith implies that wind development is harmful because it’s “industrial development,” which is why he opposes it. (For those in need of remedial grammar: “implies” means “to involve or indicate by inference, association, or necessary consequence rather than by direct statement.”)  

If Smith feels that is the case, then why did his paper glowingly name Bill Stenger the Northeast Kingdom’s “man of the year,” for Stenger’s promised Northeast Kingdom Economic Development Initiative? The description of the planned development indicates massive amounts of exactly the kind of “destruction” Smith decries, and worse [emphasis mine]:

• New ski resort hotels and facilities at both ski areas
• A window manufacturing plant
• Research and manufacturing plant of artificial organs and supplies
• Clean rooms to attract hundreds of researchers and hire local technicians
• A waterfront hotel and conference center on Lake Memphremagog
• Expanding the Newport State Airport in Coventry
• Warehouse space
• A Walmart store

The story closes with:

Suddenly, the fear and the thrill is for the exciting unknown, where a Walmart store – which local leaders say will come – is just a small development compared to Stenger’s projects.

For the hope and the excitement he has created, coupled with the belief that he is a man who carries through on promises, Bill Stenger has to be the 2012 man of the year for the Northeast Kingdom.

Smith ends today’s editorial with this coup de grace:

Industrial wind projects rape the environment and have no impact on Vermont’s carbon footprint.

Mandating environmental review for the (harmless) former but preventing it for the (destructive) latter is pure ideological hypocrisy.

There is so much in those tiny sentences. Let’s start with carbon footprint:

Vermont’s carbon footprint is only part of the pollution picture. What will change, immediately, is the amount of coal burned to power the ISO New England Grid, which directly impacts Vermont’s air quality, in a good way.

As to hypocrisy: please see the Caledonian Record’s glowing praise of Stenger’s development initiative. There’s definitely hypocrisy afoot, but it’s not in the legislature.

As to the “(harmless) former” – well, this entire post has been about the “harmless” pipelines that have turned out to be anything but “harmless.”

And lastly, I respectfully refer Mr. Smith to yesterday’s Dear Joe post. Though, in case he doesn’t want to actually bother clicking a link:

Putting up windmills has nothing to do with sexual assault – which is why comparing the windmills to sexual assault (aka: rape) is so offensive to those who have suffered deep and lasting trauma.

There’s one more tidbit, that should be of interest to those wondering why the folks in Maine would even consider taking on the increased risk of pumping tar sands bitumen through their aging pipeline:?

A 1980 law ensures that diluted bitumen is not classified as oil, and companies transporting it in pipelines do not have to pay into the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Other conventional crude producers pay 8 cents a barrel to ensure the fund has resources to help clean up some of the 54,000 barrels of pipeline oil that spilled 364 times last year.

This means that the companies who could wreck our region with their thick, heavy, carcinogenic, “black gold,” do not have to clean up after themselves, should a pipeline function in a manner other than “as designed.”

The taxpayers and traditional oil companies get to have all the costly “fun,” while the bitumen pumpers laugh all the way to the offshore bank.  I bet our friends at the Portland Pipe Line Corporation are practically drooling at the prospect of eliminating those cleanup fund payments.

Sure, the reversal of flow and change in content is “not planned,” but looking at the PPLC’s statements regarding what they may want to do with the pipeline, the planning stage probably isn’t far behind.

We are supposed to be a country of laws. The laws should apply to Wall Street as well as everybody else. So I was stunned when our country’s top law enforcement official recently suggested it might be difficult to prosecute financial institutions that commit crimes because it may destabilize the financial system of our country and the world.

“I am concerned,” Attorney General Eric Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them when we are hit with indications that if we do prosecute — if we do bring a criminal charge — it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

The attorney general was talking about some of the same financial institutions that received billions, and in some cases trillions, of dollars in taxpayer bailouts after their greed, recklessness and illegal behavior plunged the country into a terrible recession. Over my opposition, Congress approved a $700 billion taxpayer bailout of financial institutions that were on the brink of collapse which some in Congress considered “too big to fail.”

In addition, the Federal Reserve provided over $16 trillion in total financial assistance to these same institutions during the financial crisis (which only became public after an amendment I inserted into the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act requiring the Fed to disclose this information).

The attorney general’s view seems to be that if you are just a regular person and you commit a crime, you go to jail. But if you are the head of a Wall Street company, your power is so great that a prosecution could have destabilizing consequences with national or even worldwide implications.

In other words, we have a situation now where Wall Street banks are not only too big to fail, they are too big to jail. That view is unacceptable.

The attorney general’s troubling acknowledgement has revived interest in an idea that is drawing more and more support. It is time to break up too big to fail financial institutions.

The 10 largest banks in the United States are bigger today than they were before a taxpayer bailout following the 2008 financial crisis.

U.S. banks have become so big that the six largest financial institutions in this country (J.P. Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley) today have assets of nearly $9.6 trillion, a figure equal to about two-thirds of the nation’s gross domestic product. These six financial institutions issue more than two-thirds of all credit cards, over half of all mortgages, control 95 percent of all derivatives held in financial institutions and hold more than 40 percent of all bank deposits in the United States.

I will soon introduce legislation that would give the Treasury secretary 90 days to compile a list of commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds and insurance companies that the Treasury Department determines are too big to fail. The affected financial institutions would include “any entity that has grown so large that its failure would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either the financial system or the United States economy without substantial government assistance.” Within one year after the legislation becomes law, the Treasury Department would be required to break up those banks, insurance companies and other financial institutions identified by the secretary.

Breaking up the too big to fail financial institutions is a notion that has drawn support from some leading figures in the financial community. Richard Fisher, president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank, wrote this: “The safer the individual banks, the safer the financial system. The ultimate destination — an economy relatively free from financial crises — won’t be reached until we have the fortitude to break up the giant banks.” James Bullard, the head of the St. Louis Fed, also weighed in. “I do kind of agree that ‘too big to fail’ is ‘too big to exist.'” Thomas Hoenig, the former Kansas City Fed president, was an early supporter of the idea of breaking up big U.S. banks. “I think [too big to fail banks] should be broken up. And in doing so, I think you’ll make the financial system itself more stable. I think you will make it more competitive, and I think you will have long-run benefits over our current system, which leads to bailouts when crises occur.”

In my view, no single financial institution should be so large that its failure would cause catastrophic risk to millions of American jobs or to our nation’s economic wellbeing. No single financial institution should have holdings so extensive that its failure could send the world economy into crisis. And, perhaps most importantly, no institution in America should be above the law. We need to break up these institutions because of the tremendous damage they have done to our economy.

If an institution is too big to fail, it is too big to exist.

Must be a few shekels rattling around in the Vermont Republicans’ bank account.  They’ve actually hired somebody!

On Monday, Brent Burns took over as the political director of the Vermont Republican Party.

The post sat vacant for more than year, after Mike Bertrand left the position.

Uh, erm, a couple of points.

First, Burns is not replacing Mike Bertrand. Burns is “political director” while Bertrand was “executive director,” which is a couple rungs higher on the organizational ladder.

Second, I hope Burns has done his due diligence, seeing as how his “predecessor” quit the job due to a critical shortage of paychecks. When Bertrand stepped aside in March 2012, VTGOP chair Jack Lindley acknowledged that Bertrand hadn’t been paid since the beginning of the year. Ouch.

Okay, so let’s take a closer look at Mr. Burns and his political background.  

According to the party, Burns has worked as a political consultant in Texas and as a field organizer for the campaign of Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

That, apparently, is the sum total of Burns’ political experience. It’s a little bit sad, really; and raises serious issues about his political fit in the Green Mountain State. His ex-boss Michael McCaul is a garden-variety right-wing Republican who’s been in Congress for nine years without making much of a dent in the institution.

There is one lovely stain on McCaul’s political resume: He was one of three Texas Republicans who ginned up a fake controversy over the Veterans Administration allegedly banning references to God at military funerals. The Congresscritters talked of mandating religious (read: Christian) content in such services, which would have been just peachy for war dead who happened to be atheist, agnostic, or inconveniently faithed. Fortunately, it was only talk, as the VA quickly debunked their hysterical attack.

McCaul is also still actively fighting to repeal Obamacare, so there’s that. And he boasts a 100% rating from Right to Life and a big fat zero from Planned Parenthood.

But his most significant claim to fame is that he’s the wealthiest member of Congress. He came upon his riches the all-American way: he married it. McCaul’s wife Linda is the daughter of Lowry Mays, Chairman of Clear Channel Communications, the company largely responsible for turning American commercial radio into an unstaffed wasteland of prefab music formats and syndicated talkers.

Pardon the discussion on Congressman Moneybags, but it may shed light on Burns’ political leanings. Plus, there’s just not a lot of information about Burns himself.

He is a graduate of Texas A&M and a military veteran. He recently finished a tour of duty as a satellite communications supervisor for the military where, according to the VTGOP, “he oversaw operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and southwest Asia.”

Which sounds like a fancy way of saying “he sat in front of a computer terminal for eight hours a day,” but let’s acknowledge his service to his country.

It was this high-tech service, rather than Burns’ political heft, that supposedly makes him a perfect fit for the VTGOP Of Tomorrow.

“Brent has the type of leadership we have been looking for to grow our organization and move our party in a new direction,” Jack Lindley, chair of the Vermont party, said in a public statement. “He has a background in technology, which will help as we become a more agile and data driven organization.”

Which brings up another question about Burns’ new job. If you look at the Vermont Democrats’ org chart, you’ll see (among many other paid positions) a Political Director (Nick Charyk) and a Data Director (John Faas).

So why is the VTGOP hiring a data director to be its political director?

Well, the party’s carefully worded announcement would lead you to believe that they attracted a hot young talent from far away after a nationwide search. However… I found what appears to be Brent Burns’ personal website. (Which bears the headline “Brent D. Burns: Leader/Problem Solver.” Catchy.) The site is very simple and there’s not much information at all. But in it, Burns says:

I recently moved to Burlington, VT to attend graduate school. I like to work, so feel free to contact me if you think I can help your organization.

Ahh. He was already here. He didn’t relocate from Texas just for this job — which, given the circumstances of Mike Bertrand’s departure, is probably a good thing. He was a hire of convenience: a guy who was already around and looking for a little work to pay the bills and pad the resume. That explains it.

Before we close, let’s compare the resumes of the two parties’ Political Directors, shall we?

In the red corner, Republican Brent Burns, onetime campaign staffer for a Texas Congressman. And in the blue corner, Democrat Nick Charyk, who worked on Matt Dunne’s gubernatorial campaign in 2010, managed Donny Osman’s bid for State Senate that same year, and then spent two years as head of the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, where, by all accounts, he did a brilliant job leading the party to a smashing victory in 2012.

Nick seems to have quite the edge there. Plus, he’s actually from Vermont and knows the state’s politics and players. Burns? Well, he spent Monday introducing himself around the State House.

It’s good to see the VTGOP actually being able to hire a couple of staff members; it’s definitely a sign of progress. But is Burns the guy to spark a Republican turnaround? Color me skeptical.  

(Edit: this post is a response to an opinion piece by Sen. Joe Benning which was posted today on VTDigger.)

As a lawyer, I’d expect you to have a better grasp of the details of grammatical meaning – since knowing those details is such an important element of legal work.

Despoil: To steal or violently remove valuable or attractive possessions from; plunder: “a church despoiled of its icons.”

Senator Benning is trying to excuse his callous use of the word “rape” in reference to the Lowell wind project by insisting that he meant something other than what he said, while helpfully implying that victims of violent assault have no right to feel offended at his word choice.

Rape: “The act or an instance of robbing or despoiling: violent seizure.”

But, see, “despoiling” and “spoiling” have two vastly different meanings – violence is not part of “spoiling.”

If he feels that the wind project spoiled the area, he should say so. But, the Lowell mountain wind project was a development project that followed the laws of the state. The project owners bought land, filed the paperwork, did studies, and built their project – just like every hotel developer, condo developer, strip mall developer, etc. in the state.

If this project were a hotel or a mall, the project would have required the exact same types of work – blasting out ledge, building a road, etc. The only difference between this kind of project and a more typical development is that (a) it won’t involve dozens of cars per day trekking up the mountain to buy cheap crap from China, to slide down snow on little sticks while decked out in the latest winter fashions, or to roll little white balls into cups and (b), it doesn’t involve acre upon acre of impermeable paved surface that will result in massive water runoff issues.

I do not believe I’ve ever heard Senator Benning, or any other elected official refer to more conventional building projects – with higher impact on their local environments – using the same offensive language, so I have to wonder if the Senator’s hyperbolic “concern” is more for the environment, or for the Senator’s personal sense of aesthetics.

To make things worse, Senator Benning has decided that, since he’s worked with people who have been raped, he has the right to throw the word around casually (after condescendingly insisting that the word isn’t really what it is, because the law currently uses another, broader, term), without concern for those who might find the word used in a casual manner to be hurtful – such as, say, rape victims suffering from PTSD.

Ms. Barnes, as a lawyer I’m well aware of the impacts of “sexual assault,” the term that long ago replaced the word “rape” in our criminal statutes. I represented one of the first altar boy plaintiffs molested by a priest. I’ve lost count of the number of sexual assault victims I’ve represented in juvenile and divorce proceedings. I’ve served on the Caledonia County Task Force on Domestic Violence and as chair of Vermont’s Human Rights Commission.

Senator, that’s no different from a person using an ethnic slur because they know someone from the ethnic category. (Would you claim that your community has been “gypped” out of the financial benefits of the project, Sir?)

I’m not insensitive to the tragedy of sexual assault, but raping a pristine ecosystem has nothing to do with sexual assault.

Senator, your are correct that putting up windmills has nothing to do with sexual assault – which is why comparing the windmills to sexual assault (aka: rape) is so offensive to those who have suffered deep and lasting trauma.

Ask the victims who are out here, reading your remarks – seeing their experiences belittled by comparison to a construction project – whether you are being insensitive. I’d wager many will answer a resounding yes. Some will even say your remarks, and your defense thereof, are deeply offensive.

You may have learned this in law school, but perhaps not, so I’ll provide a gentle reminder: the offender does not get to decide on behalf of the “offendee” whether or not something was offensive.

Claiming “I was only [being hyperbolic/joking/using words for effect/etc.]” doesn’t fly.

With all due respect, your demand for an apology is unwarranted.

I love the use of “with all due respect.” Nice touch.

For those not “in the know” – that particular turn of phrase is used to give the speaker an “out” for being disrespectful. It’s frequently used by subordinates in the military to insinuate a complete lack of respect for the superior to whom the phrase is uttered – since the subordinate does not feel any respect is due. The superior, however, cannot punish the subordinate for insubordination, since he/she cannot prove the intent behind the word “due.”

Thank you Senator, your message has been received: you neither respect us, nor care about any pain you may have caused.  

One of Vermont’s cute little traditions made its annual appearance yesterday, as Senator Bill Doyle released the results of his annual Town Meeting Survey. And the Freeploid went nutzoid (behind a paywall), you should pardon the expression, with one of the survey questions. The headline:

Doyle poll shows popularity down for Shumlin, gas tax

And the first paragraph:

Gov. Peter Shumlin’s approval rating is down, and it might have something to do with how people feel about his proposed increase in the gas tax, which they decidedly do not like.

Oh noes! Shumlin’s in the dumpster! The gas tax is doing him in! Upheaval in Vermont politics!

Well, no.

Let’s start with the fact that Doyle’s survey, storied thought it may be, is completely unscientific. The questions are distributed at town meetings (and many other locations; there was a box of ’em in the State House lobby for several weeks), and participation is voluntary. The ‘Loid admits this, but then adds a nice little qualifier:

He can’t be sure somebody isn’t stuffing the ballot box, but often the results smell right and they have lots of people in Vermont political circles buzzing.

“Often the results smell right.” Smell right to whom? The reporters and politicos under the Golden Dome? Need I remind you that they don’t have a terribly good track record when it comes to the “smell” of politics?

Still to come: the biggest exaggeration in this article.

These renowned sniffers are the same ones who believed Vince Illuzzi was a shoo-in for Auditor because he was such a brilliant politician, known and loved by all. When, in fact, his fame basically resided in two low-population areas: the Northeast Kingdom and the State House. They also believed that Beth Pearce was in serious trouble because she had no political experience while her opponent, Wendy Wilton, had the deep pockets of Lenore Broughton behind her.

And I haven’t even gotten to the Big Lie in this story yet.

•42 percent say they think second-term Democrat Shumlin is doing a good job, down from 46 percent last year…  

Wait wait wait. Shumlin’s approval is down by FOUR POINTS? Even if the Doyle Survey was a scientifically designed and conducted poll, four points would be within the margin of error. A four-point drop would have little or no significance even if it came from Gallup or Castleton. Four points in a Doyle survey is nothing.

And the “analysis” that Shumlin’s alleged “decline” is due to the gas tax proposal? Absolute sheer guesswork. By a Republican, no less.

I mean, Bill Doyle is a good guy and everybody loves him. But he is, after all, a member of the Loyal Opposition. Plus he has a vested interest in his Survey, which is his calling card in Vermont politics. And the “analysis” comes entirely from him:

Doyle suggested Shumlin’s drop in approval is a comedown from the good vibes for his response to the 2011 Tropical Storm Irene. Now, there is the reality of a higher proposed gas tax, Doyle noted.

Again, the “drop in approval” is statistically meaningless. And nobody else is quoted in the piece.

Freeploid FAIL.  

The budget cuts caused by the federal sequestration have been in effect for a month now, and some of them are starting to roll out to the communities where those dollars were going to be spent, and now I'm confused.

Now don't tell me I don't understand economics, because I do. I listen to the Republicans year after year, so I know what works and what doesn't. And like Republicans, the one thing I know for sure is this:

“The government doesn't create jobs,” – Mitt Romney, October 16.

So can you explain what Republican congressman Dennis Ross is talking about when he doesn't want the FAA to shut down the control tower at his local airport?

The state’s largest convention, SUN ‘n FUN, which is held in April at Lakeland Linder Airport, not only provides incredible economic value to Lakeland, but it serves our children by investing $1.4 million dollars annually in education. It is unacceptable to close this important control tower. 

Maybe he needs Mitt Romney to explain to him, one more time, that the government doesn't create jobs.

I dunno, but the state Senate is managing the trick.

A non-bylined story on the Times Argus website (paywalled), presumably written by Peter Hirschfeld, practically delivers last rites for the campaign finance reform bill that was loudly and unanimously supported by the Democratic, Republican, and Progressive Parties, plus Secretary of State Jim Condos.

The problem is, campaign law is every elected official’s bread and butter, and they are loath to change the rules that got them where they are today. I witnessed the beginning of the bill’s death by a thousand cuts at a recent hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The bill had to pass through Appropriations because it included $100,000 for new IT to manage campaign and election databases.

And the Appropriations Committee basically spent an hour dumping all over the bill. Republicans questioned its basic philosophy — that big money erodes public confidence, and the best available remedy is increased transparency. Many Democrats picked fights with the bill; Dick Sears fretted about possible lawsuits (an issue thoroughly vetted by the Government Operations Committee), and Bobby Starr questioned the need for change because, well, we’ve always done it this way so why shouldn’t we keep doing it this way? Genius.

And nobody wanted to spend any money on the bill, in spite of Condos’ explanation that the existing software is, aside from being hopelessly outdated and inadequate, barely functional at all.

Champions of Democracy, I tell you. During that hour, I did not hear a single expression of concern for the voters. You know, the people who put these mooks in their comfy chairs. The campaign finance reform bill would make it much easier to follow the money in Vermont politics. It would require more frequent filings, to be sure; but electronic filing would make the task a whole lot simpler than it is now.

So I can’t say I was surprised to read the Times Argus account, which spotlighted a return engagement by the Slummin’ Solon, Peter Galbraith, in his role as Derailer of Campaign Finance Reform. His pet peeve is corporate donations; he wants ’em banned entirely.

Which would greatly benefit people like, er, Peter Galbraith, who is independently wealthy and who self-funds his campaigns far beyond the capacity of your typical Senatorial candidate — roughly $50,000 each in 2010 and 2012.

After the jump: the Senate puts the knife in.

As the article recounts:

As the clerk called the roll on Galbraith’s amendment, and “yeses” began to outnumber “nays,” observers in the gallery knew something was amiss. Lawmakers here by and large oppose efforts to prohibit corporate giving to candidates, mainly because it’s a source of funds on which many of them have come to rely.

Sen. Anthony Pollina provided an insightful diagnosis of the vote:

“My gut tells me a majority of the body does not want to prohibit corporate contributions, but they were afraid to go on record as being in support of them,” Pollina said. “So they voted for the amendment with the hope that the whole bill would fail, and they wouldn’t have to comply with that ban.”

And, foreseeing the bill’s defeat, Government Operations Committee Chair Jeannette White basically pulled the bill from the floor.

It’s possible that the bill will make a comeback, but the odds are against passage because Galbraith’s provision is still part of it — and that almost ensures a “No” vote.

Which would make 2013 the second year in a row that Peter Galbraith played a decisive role in killing campaign law reform.

The article ends with this faint glimmer of hope:

Key lawmakers are scrambling now to find a path forward. And Secretary of State Jim Condos said they better figure something out quick. If the state waits until next year to install heightened disclosure requirements, he said, then they may not take effect in time to have any impact on the 2014 election.

At times like these, it’s hard not to see the State Senate as the biggest barrier to progress in Montpelier. I’d just like to thank these self-serving asshats for ignoring the interests of the voters and the expressed wishes of their own parties.

April First may have come and gone, but believe me, we’ve got more than our share of fools.  

In a stunning turn of events, the PSB received a spreadsheet from Entergy outlining how it can replace the condenser, fully fund the decommissioning account and make a huge profit while running Vermont Yankee safely and without a single problem over the next 20 years.

The Executive board of Entergy is shown as receiving a total compensation package of $1 each, with no benefits, no bonuses for the entire 20 year run of the plant.  Further, all employees at VY will receive their full-time pay for another 10 years, or until they find other work (whichever is sooner).

However a skeptical NRC may put the kibosh on all of this saying that Vermont Yankee is a decrepit old plant that should have been shut down shortly after it opened due to inherent design flaws that it knew about then.  The NRC is also expected to order the closure of almost every nuclear power plant in the nation as being unsafe.

Chemical engineers and particle physicists had been warning that the random combination of wildly accelerating, high-intensity radioactivity continuing to accumulate and accelerate in the small, enclosed Senate Chamber, combined with the environmental supersaturation of volatile gasses and high-temperature, high-density atmospheric pressures would not be sustainable – and had already been building for two prior sessions.

Forensic scientists will not be able to ascertain conclusively which floor debate finally set off the explosion, as the crater it left behind is likely to remain dangerously radioactive for at least fifty years.